Are you for going to war with Iraq? Then can you answer these questions?

Great Debates
61

I keep reading stuff that seems to be implying, “Last time it was a turkey shoot; this time it really will be the Mother of All Battles.”

The argument seems to be that we must be careful not to force Saddam into a situation where he has no reason not to unleash his WMD. What would prevent him from capitulating, and allowing inspectors into Iraq? Is this not better than getting thrown out of power and/or killed by US troops and bombs?

Why not keep the pressure up on him to do as he promised? Being overwhelmingly defeated, to the point where practically the entire Iraqi army surrendered to anything that moved and had a US flag on it, certainly got him to give up Kuwait the last time. Why would now be any different?

And if he would rather die than surrender, the Iraqi military is not as stupid as he is en masse. He begins raving about fighting to the last man after the fireworks begin, some marginally competent military type (probably a member of his personal security force) empties a clip into him, they announce “Our Glorious Leader has fallen in battle. His dying wish was for the safety of his beloved people; accordingly we will open negotiations with the imperialist pig-dogs of the running dog capitalist oppressors about a cease-fire.”

UN inspectors arrive the next morning.

The most likely scenario? Probably not. But at least as likely as Iraq handing over its fissionable materials to terrorists and dying to the last man.

Saddam is a selfish bastard, like most of these Third World dictators. Given a choice of surrender or die, he will surrender. At least, that is what he did last time.

When he invaded Kuwait, he thought nobody would do anything. They would impose sanctions and pass resolutions and make speeches, and do nothing substantive.

Same now. He thinks nobody is going to do anything. They will make speeches and yell a lot, then lift the sanctions in a couple years and he can go back to conquering the area.

He is a person who needs to be smacked upside the head every so often. If that doesn’t work, kill him. But he is not an ideologically committed Muslim terrorist like ObL. He isn’t going to pass out WMD like Halloween candy unless he thinks he can get something out of it.

So all these doomsday scenarios seem less likely to me than the Gulf War, Part Deux. And if he starts slinging Scuds with anthrax or plutonium aboard, the likely target is not the US but Israel.

Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. Keep up the pressure until he caves - likely after he has had the shit bombed out of him for a few weeks. If the Iraqis kill him, so much the better.

Regards,
Shodan

62

Shodan,
If you are talking about using the threat of war to force Saddam to take back the inspectors and not hinder them, I don’t disagree. But the hawks don’t want to use war as a threat; they just want war and regime change regardless of what Saddam does. So it is the difference between using war as a means of last resort versus first resort.

63

The Iraq WMD problem didn’t begin yesterday. The time for a first resort was 1991.

The difference now is between those who think that eleven years of failed inspections is long enough to conclude that they don’t work vs. those who want to give them a twelfth year of effort.

64

I have explained several times the error in referring to “11 years of failed inspections” ; clearly arguing with you on this issue is pointless. In any event this whole discussion is getting tedious.

65

Well, CP, some of those who talk about first trying inspections are really opposed to war regardless, but they don’t want to say so. Do you support war ever? At what point would you recommend that the US ought to attack Iraq?

66

No we are against wars of agression (for the Xteenth time)

67

Well, when attacked by Iraq, of course. Thats what it says in the UN Charter we signed. That’s what we said at Nuremberg, when we hanged Nazi’s for making aggressive war.

Time and again, we ask what immediacy, what clear and present danger exists such that war is imperative, and at once. Time and again, we get the same broken litany about 11 years, 11 years, on and on and on.

Because no such immediacy exists. This question has been asked again and again, and never answered. And as the public’s blind obedience drains away, and the “war polls” drop, Feckless Leader works to stampede the Congress into writing him a blank check. Right now. Can’t wait. Urgent. Emergency.

This last speech was a classic of the form. Please note, if you will, that the speech was given to “500 invited guests”. He was taking no chances that any dissenting voice might accidentally be heard. He trotted out a litany of every rumor, every innuendo, anything that might remotely be used as justification, and still failed to make his case.

I expect an “incident”. If the Bushistas lose this one, they are in very very deep kim chee. They must keep the public attention on war with Iraq for 30 more days, to run out the clock.

They’ve already been trying. Rumsfeld suddenly decides that is that anti-aircraft fire that is so terribly important, a point Feckless Leader underlined in his speech. More than 700 times they have fired upon us!!

And never hit once. Not once. This has been explained to me, they dare not turn on thier radar, so they fire off thier guns in the wild ass hope of maybe. Rather like trying to shoot a 600 mph duck with a .22 caliber pistol when the duck is cruising at 3000 ft. A detail ommitted.

And Al Queda is taking sanctuary in Iraqi territory. Territory held by our putative allies, the Kurds, and in no wise controlled by Saddam bin Laden. Another detail omitted. Inconvenient.

And on it goes. They will have thier war. By any means necessary.

december

I was unaware that you had included mind reading in your accomplishments. But I suppose if Bush can peer into Vlad “the Impaler” Putin’s soul, there’s no reason you cannot read my mind.

There will be an incident. Bet on it.

68

december, why on Earth should we have to justify not going to war? The onus is on the warhawks to justify war either by: a) showing clear evidence of an imminent threat which can only be averted through military action, or b) providing compelling argument that nonmilitary actions such as inspections are and cannot be effective, that Iraq is aggressive toward the US or toward US allies or is destroying regional stability, and that the danger posed by this status quo is greater than the danger posed by US military action.

Neither approach to justification has been compelling, and in fact the only justification consistently offered by our CIC is that Saddam is Eeevill, a reality we’ve clearly understood for at least a dozen years (and probably since we before we began arming the bastard against Iran).

69

“Do you support war ever? At what point would you recommend that the US ought to attack Iraq?”
If Saddam refused to allow inspectors back or made their work impossible to carry out, I would support using military options to force him to do so.

70

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60859-2002Oct8.html

George Tenet, responding to the Senate Intelligence Cmmte.

71

Turn this question around. If our generals were anxious to fight a war, but the civilian administration didn’t want to, would you take that as a reason we should fight said war?

Of course not. So why would the opposite be the case?

In any event, the day we turn to the military brass to decide whether we should fight a war is the day we concede civilian control of the military. The military should tell us whether we can successfully fight a war. Whether we should is a political decision made after debate - kinda like what we are doing now.

Sua